Brexit

Imagine a couple where the husband has constantly been putting down his wife for years and she has carried on for the sake of the children. Then one day he turns around and says he wants a divorce so he can go and have sex with other women.

But he wants to carry on having sex with her and wants to carry on living in their house but not pay the mortgage anymore.

He then becomes very annoyed then angry when her lawyer informs him that sex with her is just not going to happen, that all the property has to be shared out equally and she is getting custody of the kids.

Such guys are usually too proud to beg to be taken back

Instead they usually end up friendless, single, living in a mouldy bedsit in Dagenham and drinking half a bottle of scotch a night while mumbling ‘the bitch’ every once and awhile.

Click to expand...

Balbus !
This was your post I responded to when I said "We are being Fucked by the EU" that you seemed to have difficulty getting !

The united kingdom joined the "common market " or EEC in 1973 this was a group formed to facilitate trade between countries ! we joined at the same time as the republic of Ireland and Denmark , now there are a total of 28 a lot of these countries receive more from the EU than they contribute putting a bigger burden on the others !
The uk pays in nearly 5 billion per year more than it gets back and the money we do get the EU Decides how that money is spent how do you guys justify this ?

Balbus ! This was your post I responded to when I said "We are being Fucked by the EU" that you seemed to have difficulty getting !

Click to expand...

Still makes no sense can you please explain?

The united kingdom joined the "common market " or EEC in 1973 this was a group formed to facilitate trade between countries !

Click to expand...

That is the big problem and the big lie

We were signing up to the European project, that was understood by many in government and in the UK at the time (myself included) but the right wing establishment claimed it was purely a trade agreement and the lie has stuck.

As I’ve already noted De Gaulle first vetoed the UK entry because he didn’t think we would be serious about joining up to the European project and I think he was correct.

The uk pays in nearly 5 billion per year more than it gets back and the money we do get the EU Decides how that money is spent how do you guys justify this?

Click to expand...

I believe it is closer to 9 billion

But lets put that in context we spend

145 billion on health

45 billion on defence

29 billion on transport

And 13 billion on overseas aid

We also contribute less (per head of population) than some other EU countries such as Germany.

For the 9 billion we get all the advantages of free trade with the EU members and with the EU trade deals with none EU countries and a say in the regulations and policies set by the EU.

Some have put a figure of roughly £31bn-£92bn per year as the best estimate we have in terms of the additional value created to the UK economy through trade as a result of EU membership.

[edit] Also I believe we would still need to pay into the EU for a trade deal, I know both Norway and Switzerland make payments into the EU that are linked to their trade deals.

So if the UK did want to back away from this, what's the legal path there? Getting Parliament to ask for another referendum?

Click to expand...

A second referendum is what a lot of people think would be the most sensible course of action, think about it - you and your family might choose to buy a house (believing all the lies of the seller) but once you have had it checked out and the seller’s lies are revealed, (the rot in the woodwook and the cracks in the foundation) I believe you should get another chance to decide if you want to buy the house, with all its problems, or walk away?

What the leaver politicians that said so many lies in the run up to the referendum vote are basically saying is that since you said you wanted to buy the house you still have to buy the house even though you might now be more informed about the (rot and cracks) risks .

The thing is that the lying leave politicians fear a second referendum because I think they know they would lose it.

Yesterday MP's voted down 'no deal'. Today they've just voted to extend article 50 and delay brexit by a majority of 210.

May and her government have lost control of the commons completely. That is clear. What is not so easy to say is what happens now? The EU has said they will only allow article 50 to be extended for good reason - a general election, a second referendum - not for more attempts at tinkering with the deal they offered and which has now been rejected 3 times.

So, are we closer to crashing out or closer to killing off the brexit monster? A very difficult call. The whole political process seems to have gone into a kind spin such as we've never seen.

I really cannot see the purpose of an extension when parliament is never going to vote en mass for the deal on the table. In my imaginary best scenario world article 50 would be rescinded and we would all go back to normal. I can but dream!

How can you be British and not know what the expression ‘shooting yourself in the foot’ means?

It means (as seems obvious) doing oneself harm.

The UK had a very good deal in regards to the EU (and world trade) and by voting to leave it we are collectively ‘shooting yourself in the foot’ - doing ourselves our country and our children harm.

In relation to a Hard Brexit with no (or very little of a deal) only the seriuosly delusional think it will do no harm – most people that have looked at it believe it will cause short term and long term harm and many hard-line leavers (who want it as their preferred outcome) seem to now think it will do short to medium harm but in the long run say in 20 or more year’s time it might turn out alright.

Even a soft Brexit will be worse than what we have but might not do as bad short term harm but will likely be bad for our long term prospects.

Obviously I know what it means I just think it doesn't compare to what's happening! why can't we be trading partners with countries in Europe without being in the eu ? The balance of trade between us and them is more or less 50 50 why do they need us to give them billions of pounds as a divorce settlement when we have always been a net contributer do you agree that there should be an eu army ? I have concerns that your bombastic rhetoric does nothing to allay !

Why do you think we are punishing ourselves ? For daring to want to leave their club

why can't we be trading partners with countries in Europe without being in the eu ?

Click to expand...

Are you only just asking yourself these questions now? Have you thought about such things and looked into it?

*

This is partly answered above in that other post to you.

Thing is we can trade with the EU (it is a trading bloc) from outside but we are not going to get as good a deal out of it as we would within it also we have a lot of trading links with European industries (with parts crossing boarders) that are likely to be put in jeopardy.

The balance of trade between us and them is more or less 50 50 why do they need us to give them billions of pounds as a divorce settlement

Click to expand...

We had already signed up to funding things, it was a contract and just as in any situation where you break the contract you have to pay up, like in a divorce. And as already pointed out the deal we had was a very good deal.

do you agree that there should be an eu army ?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean – the UK position within the EU had been opposed and could have vetoed it – but we are leaving so no veto.

Also these are also in the whole fellow NATO members are you saying you think of them as an enemy (or potential one) if so why?

Why do you think we are punishing ourselves ? For daring to want to leave their club

Click to expand...

Do you think we are going to be better off out of the EU and if so how?

Why do you keep answering questions with questions ?
What had we signed up for to the tune of 80 billion when as I said we already pay our way and more
We don't need a European army that's why we are members of NATO (or so I thought ) how can the eu even afford an army of it's own when most of the countries in it are bankrupt